VoxEu Column on Paternalistic prefernces
People often make choices that do not align with their own well-being due to misinformation or cognitive biases. A recent large-scale experiment by Björn Bartling, Alexander Cappelen, Henning Hermes, Marit Skivenes, and Bertil Tungodden explores how Americans prefer to address these situations.
The findings reveal strong support for soft interventions—providing information to guide better decisions—while there is significant resistance to hard interventions that remove freedom of choice. The study offers valuable insights for policymakers seeking to balance individual autonomy and welfare.
The study, conducted with 14,000 U.S. participants, placed individuals in the role of spectators observing others, referred to as stakeholders, making financial decisions. Stakeholders had to choose between a safe option with a guaranteed payout and a risky option with a higher potential reward but also a chance of receiving nothing. Some stakeholders were placed in a non-transparent decision environment, meaning they misunderstood the odds and mistakenly favored the risky choice. Spectators could intervene in two ways: by providing accurate information to correct the misunderstanding while preserving the stakeholder’s choice (a soft intervention) or by removing the risky option altogether (a hard intervention).
The results showed a clear preference for soft paternalism. Over 85% of spectators intervened by providing information, helping stakeholders make informed decisions while maintaining their autonomy. In contrast, only about one-third opted for hard paternalism, which directly restricted choice by removing the risky option. These findings were consistent across variations of the experiment, suggesting that people are comfortable with interventions that nudge better decisions but reluctant to support measures that take choices away entirely.
A second part of the study reinforced these insights by asking participants to directly assign an outcome to stakeholders. While most respected individual preferences, they also leaned toward assigning the safer option, demonstrating a concern for welfare alongside a strong commitment to preserving choice. This balance between autonomy and guidance is particularly relevant for public policy, where similar debates arise in areas like public health, finance, and consumer protection.
Despite common political disagreements over government intervention, the study suggests that the fundamental divide is not about paternalism itself, but rather about the extent of control people believe institutions should have. While skepticism toward restrictive policies remains strong, there is broad support for measures that help individuals make better decisions without imposing hard constraints. For policymakers, these findings highlight the importance of designing interventions that inform and guide rather than dictate behavior.
This research provides valuable evidence on how people perceive the balance between welfare and freedom, reinforcing the idea that the most effective policies may be those that empower individuals rather than restrict them.